The message of this article, obfuscated, but easy to read between the lines:
- The author, like all right-wing people, argues is not possible to separate the “art” from the “artist” – inspite of the fact – and it is a fact – that failure to do so is a mark of insanity, delusion, inability to distinguish truth from untruth).
And believes that “artists” who do not, in their personal lives, meet some sort of morality test should have their work destroyed in order that they may be written out of history. Something we used to associate with the Nazis and the Soviets, but which has already happened in the UK – hasn’t it, Ovenden, Gadd etc!
- The author believes there are no such things as hyperbole (a terrifyingly widespread belief – compare reactions to the Donald Trump “parking-lot outtake”), or irony, or perhaps even fiction itself. (If I believed the author was mentally competent, capable of rational perception, I would ask – never heard of writing-in-character? Or do you believe that all people besides yourself must be presumed to be incapable of interpretation…especially if they’re teenagers, whom you evidently perceive as being on the mental level of toddlers
- The author supports the perverse but ever-expanding legal position (the basis for laws against so-called “hate speech”) that any “offended” person’s interpretation of either “art” or of communication of any kind, supercedes and annuls that of the “speaker”, who is the originator of the thought. Or indeed, that of the other ten billion people on the planet. Inspite of the fact – and it is a simple fact – that, whether they are “the addressee” or not, any person’s interpretation, of anything they see or hear, at any time, is ultimately irrelevant, or of only passing relevance at best, Because they are not the transmitter of the thought – they are not qualified to form an opinion. It’s that shit-lickingly simple!
- “The Independent” itself endorses these dangerous perverse beliefs – bearing in mind that like all paper-or-electronic “news media”, it is in fact a political campaigning organisation. And an obstacle to freedom of expression (because it pretends to have a “brand”, and to deal in “Intellectual property”: two things which do not exist even on a logical-conceptual level).
In which context, the author is not exercising her own “freedom of expression”. She is exerting tyrrany (something she is able to do because of the laws on our books which effectively equate fiction with fact – laws concerning “hate speech”, “emotional abuse”, “intimidation” and “conspiracy”, plus such reknowned affronts to reality and rational perception as the “cartoon porn laws” included in the Coroners and Justice and Public Order Acts)
By publishing this article, and thereby endorsing the cause of CENSORSHIP:-
The Independent is colloquially sh1tting on the graves of, amongst others, Galileo, Thomas More, Martin Luther (both bearers of this name), Radclyffe Hall, DH Lawrence, John Cleland, Howard Brenton, Oz, Kathy Acker and many others.
Endorsing their persecutors.
To Whom It May Concern – NOW BUGGERING READ THIS AND LEARN
Fact: Censorship is a worse offence against humanity than murder, rape or mutilation.
Because – You can kill a person, you can disable them, you can make them incapable of functioning in society due to enduring trauma, but none of these things represent actual attempted dehumanization. Censorship – anyone attempting to impose any limitations on freedom of expressions (including copyright law) – does.
Because – What makes a human a human? The thing that separates one from another – their self, their psyche. Which, if it isn’t able to express itself authentically, subject to no prescriptions whatsoever, may as well not exist.
If a person is prevented from expressing themselves absolutely authentically, they are in effect being denied the right to a self..
And a message is being sent out that a self, a personality, is some sort of privilege to be earned.
That is attempted dehumanization. Physical violence is not.
“Attempted” because the only person being dehumanized is the censor.
A practitioner (active or passive) or censorship is presenting as an intractable threat to every other human. Which means they have signed their own death warrant.